Do you have any links to this info. I would be interesting in reading it, even if it isn't true.

Found this on a CMA forum (again, note that I'm not advocating the theory, just thought it was interesting speculation) -

There is another theory concerning the origin of Wing Chun/Ving Tsun--i.e., the suggestion that it is derived from 19th century British bare-knuckle pugilism.

This idea has been tossed around for the past 15 or 20 years. To the best of my knowledge, it was first suggested by Wing Chun instructor Karl Godwin, in his brilliant article, "In Search of Wing Chun's Roots--Did it Evolve from Western Boxing or the Shaolin Temple?", which appeared in the June 1986 issue of Black Belt magazine.

Godwin noted the following:

1. There is no actual record of the Buddhist nun Ng Mui even existing. Godwin said that Master Leung Ting stated that he "doubted the historical events and the existence of Wing Chun characters before Leung Jan."

2. Every Wing Chun master has a different location regarding the various Wing Chun temples.

3. Wing Chun masters are totally inconsistent regarding the art's age, putting it at anywhere between 150-300 years old.

4. Wing Chun lacks the ritual of other Chinese styles. There are no salutations at the beginning of its forms.

5. Wing Chun is technically quite different from other Chinese styles.

6. "The pacifist-type tradition found in most kung fu systems is practically nonexistent in Wing Chun".

7. Wing Chun takes much less time to become proficient in, when compared with other Chinese methods.

8. No weapons are native to the Wing Chun system. The bart cham dao and long pole were "introduced from another style".

The theory is that local southern Chinese fighters were influenced by visiting British sailors.

Godwin went into particulars in his article:

1. Leung Ting stated that Wing Chun was developed in coastal southeast China, which also happens to be where English sailors introduced Western boxing.

2. Western boxing was, in fact, introduced in China in the 19th century, as noted by Draeger and Smith in their classic text, Comprehensive Asian Fighting Arts.

3. "Wing Chun is more similar to boxing than any other Chinese martial art. Pictures of the great early European fighters... show them in stances strikingly similar to those found in Wing Chun. The techniques of Wing Chun and boxing also seem to be related. Both arts use straight punches, and both use shuffling steps to advance. The defensive hand techniques of both arts also have a similar structure. The Wing Chun kao sao is found in boxing as the "brush away". Pak sao is known in boxing as "cuffing", and bong sao is found in old boxing as the "cross brush away".

4. "The Wing Chun principle of sil lin die dar (simultaneous attack and defense) is a common characteristic of boxing". {And of fencing, for that matter}

5. The fact that Wing Chun was developed to fight against taller people suggests, obviously, that the locals were fighting against taller peopler--visiting European sailors, perhaps?

And so, Godwin made a good case for British pugilism being the influence for the creation of Wing Chun.

In addition, it's worth noting that 19th century prizefighters typically punched with the "vertical fist", striking with the bottom three knuckles, just as in Wing Chun. This punching method was detailed by Jack Dempsey in his Championship Fighting book. Although Dempsey was from the Glove Era, at least one of his trainers had also worked with some of the last of the great bare-knuckle boxers, like Peter Jackson. Dempsey specifically mentioned this.

On the other hand, WC and British BK pugilism differ in that their is grappling in the latter (standing throws were allowed in London Prize Ring rules matches). One has to wonder if Wing Chun ever had a grappling component.

Wing Chun as taught in the Wong Shun Leung line still include various standing armlocks and throws (mostly leg-vs-leg 'reaping' type takedowns). It is also true that several well known Yip Man students also had backgrounds in Western Boxing.

Differences between boxing and Wing Chun:-

1) Conditioning methods. No boxer I've ever met thinks that a key component of preparing their body to fight involves holding a difficult stance (requiring the development of a weird niche type of isometric strength) whilst moving the arms in super-slow motion (with dynamic tension at points and/or iron rings worn on the arm to add weight).

Even the oldest of old-school boxing coaches who were completely against the use of weight-lifting based physical conditioning on dynamic explosive movement (callisthenics, pad & bag drills) and lengthy cardio sessions of repetitive dynamic movement (roadwork, skipping). There's some fundamental differences between Wing Chun and Western Boxing ideas on how you prepare somebody's body for fighting, as there are with many other asian MA. Chinese MA commonly include isometrics, dynamic tension and exercises for postural muscles to a degree and variety you don't see in western atheletic ideas. Whether or not this is a bad thing or a good thing is a topic for another thread.

2) It is not true to say that Wing Chun is more like western boxing than any other southern chinese system. It shares many, many simillarities with Hung Gar and various other 'short fist' southern chinese systems. I've trained in Wing Chun, and watched a lot of forms being demonstrated by Hung Gar practitioners,
Wing Chun is very reminiscent of a trimmed down, simplified Hung Gar with most of the large 'long fist' expansive movements taken out.

There might well be some connection between old-school barenuckle boxing and Wing Chun, but the southern chinese heritage is much, much clearer than stated in that article.

Bear in mind that Godwin was clear about presenting this theory as speculation - he wasn't saying "this is the way it happened".

It's been over twenty years since I actually read his article, but I recall Godwin suggesting that Wing Chun could have been a fusion of European pugilism strategies/techniques and one or several CMA, which might be how he'd explain the differences (conditioning methods, etc.)

It's also worth noting that Godwin was specifically referring to early-mid 1800s pugilism - prize fighting - rather than to late 1800s>20th century glove fighting. The amateur (originally called "scientific") style adopted gloves well before the professional style did. Modern professional boxing resembles amateur boxing of the late 1800s more than the professional boxing of a hundred years earlier.

Old-school pugilism came in a range of styles - the champions who produced training manuals all described and illustrated their own preferred style, and there's a lot of diversity between them.

It occurred to me traditional boxing with those stances, simple throws, simple kicks, simple grappling could be an excellent form of self defense. And it might be an idea to have a TMA form of MMA which deals with self defense aspects of not hurting yourself when doing it around the metaphoric lava. Also I have a friend who is a doctor in an emergency room of a hospital who said a hell of a lot of fight injuries are broken hands. Safety in the execution of techniques is critical.

This is a stellar idea. Although, I propose that, given that most people perform delicate work involving their hands in this day and age, we should have some sort of means to protect the hands from damage. Some sort of "hand padding" if you will.

I'd say it's reasonable to also conclude that, we should protect the feet in the same manner, given that, if we are unable to walk, we can't stay employed.

However, I do contend that the presence of this hand padding will most likely reduce a lot of the availability of techniques, such as a lot of the simple grappling, very difficult to perform, and might in fact limit us to some very generic throws.

And given that so many of the techniques have been altered now, it's only reasonable that we adjust the stance to make the most of what is available. I mean, it'd be foolish to stay in an old guard when it's not as beneficial as a new one that capitalizes on openings.